Download Print-Friendly Version

It took over 40 years to put into words what happened to me as a child. Each time I tried, I would somehow find ways to avoid talking about the abuse openly. 

After grappling with the dark shadows of trauma for over 60 years, the heart-level healing I am now experiencing—after so long—has surprised me.

As a little child in the early ‘60s, I often heard the words: “If you don’t stop crying, I’ll give you something to cry about.”

My dad, raised during World War II by a Marine drill sergeant father, viewed emotional outbursts, especially crying, as weakness—much like others of his generation. Even in my mid-20s, I remember Mom asking me not to tell her anything “upsetting” because she didn’t want to cry. “Crying doesn’t help anything,” she said.

But I had plenty to cry about. 

I had been the victim of ongoing abuse since the tender age of three through my midteens at the hands of multiple perpetrators. I also had plenty to say, but couldn’t say it, because “no one likes a tattletale.” Contributing to this barrier of silence were words from war-era Bambi: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.”

Those phrases may seem small. But for a child living with abuse, I applied those sayings to the situation I was in, and those standards became a kind of prison for me.

That’s one reason why so many victims wait years, or even decades, to speak out. 

Mistaking Silence for Safety

Standing in front of a small U-Haul in December 1968, I pointed down the street and, with as much feeling as I could muster, exclaimed, “I don’t like that boy. He’s mean!”

Mom snapped: “Diana! We don’t say naughty things about people we don’t know. I don’t ever want to hear you say anything naughty about that boy again.”

And I didn’t.

It’s only because we were moving that I had the courage to point him out that day. But after Mom’s scolding, I didn’t dare say another word about him (or other abusers) for nearly 20 years.

I’m not alone with delayed disclosure. It is, tragically, common in cases of child sexual abuse. Many victims wait years or decades to tell anyone. Some research puts the average age of first disclosure or reporting at 52.

One 2010 research report summarizes: “On average it takes 17 years before victims disclose their abuse.”

Why do victims wait so long to speak out? What makes speaking out feel so impossible? Fear, shame, confusion, culture, threats, and the absence of empathy can all work together to keep a child silent. 

It wasn’t until recently that I could see how being scared to “tell” set me up for years of continuing abuse and ensuing mental health issues.

Saying It Out Loud

Even today, I wonder: Why didn’t someone stop the abuse when I was little? Why didn’t anyone see that I was suffering and try to help?

Those questions troubled me until words I overheard as a child came to mind while writing a few months ago: 

“Should we talk to her about it?”

“No, she’s too little. She won’t remember.”

Although it took me 20 years to speak up, I remembered.

I had just tried a third antidepressant, and I still wasn’t doing well. My doctor said, “I think what’s going on is more in here,” pointing to my head, “than anything else. A good therapist will help you more than I can.”

Even then, it took 18 anxiety-filled months before I mustered the courage to finally “tell”—to say out loud the words: “I was sexually abused as a child.”

Trauma researcher Peter A. Levine has written, “Trauma is not what happens to us, but what we hold inside in the absence of an empathetic witness.” He also explains that avoidance is sometimes “the nervous system’s attempt to cope with overwhelming activation.” 

Looking back, I can see that as soon as I came close to mentioning that I had been sexually abused, I would stop going to therapy. That is, until the next triggered depression. Without realizing it, I was actually avoiding the emotional turmoil of talking about what happened to me.

What felt for a season as a weakness was, in part, woundedness and fear. That distinction matters for survivors, but also for families, friends, and faith communities. If we misunderstand the factors that keep survivors silent, we may unintentionally deepen another person’s isolation. 

Deeper healing needed

Because that on-again, off-again cycle continued for over thirty-five years, progress seemed so slow that I often wondered what was wrong with me. Why couldn’t I experience more than fleeting relief from depression?

“Innocence offended, peace and comfort hid; Swallowed cups of bitterness, came to live,” I once wrote in a poem trying to make sense of it all.

Trauma does not stay neatly in memory. As Bessel van der Kolk has observed, “The effects of trauma are stored in the body. Until they are addressed there, words alone are not enough.”

That insight helped me understand why my healing required more than brief conversations or temporary relief. It also helped me see why healing can take longer than outsiders expect. Survivors are not machines to be reset. They are wounded souls and bodies learning and healing.

My emotionally raw poetry continued to help me heal: 

“Years of vinegar passed; no one knew but me. Sorrow’s Jailor, ne’er a wounded heart frees.”

When I first began writing, I didn’t know I had entered a pathway out of trauma. Even so, words still mattered a great deal to me—words expressed to others, and to God, too. 

I didn’t often pray aloud, but my wounded heart continually pleaded for help—yearning for deeper, more lasting healing. It wasn’t until recent years, while pondering and writing about my experiences, that I began to clearly see God’s hand in my life.

All along, silent prayers were being answered. 

As President Thomas S. Monson, former President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, once taught, “I promise you that you will one day stand aside and look at your difficult times, and you will realize that He was always there beside you.”

More Than My Story

Learning to trust in the Lord with all my heart has not been easy for me. But as I choose to trust Him—and his timing—I have, indeed, experienced deeper, more lasting healing. 

My story is personal, but the struggle that victims of childhood sexual abuse experience is not. Many who suffer do not disclose quickly. Many who try to speak do so indirectly. Many are met with misunderstanding. 

This issue asks something of all of us. 

It took over 40 years to put into words what happened to me as a child.

I wish it had not taken so long.

But I am grateful that, by God’s grace, it was not too late.

The post 40 Years to Say it Out Loud appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

If the first article mapped the terrain of vulnerability, the second this part turns to the work of building protection.

What would it look like to respond proportionately to what the evidence actually shows? If certain patterns repeatedly increase vulnerability, then their opposites ought to must become deliberate priorities. In this section, I outline practical steps—grounded in the research reviewed previously above—that families, faith communities, and civic institutions can take to reduce risk and expand real protection for women and children.

The protection of healthy, genuine faith

In part one, I outlined ways that limited religious community and faith commitment can increase the risk of sexual violence against women. The opposite is also true, with religious affiliation, identification and participation often protective against sexual violence according to studies in various countries. For instance:

• A family’s “affiliation with Christian religious denominations” is “associated with lower risk of physical and sexual violence” in India (Kimuna, et al., 2013). 
• Being a Muslim was “protective from any type” of intimate partner violence” including “sexual and emotional” in the Ivory Coast (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2014). 
• The latter finding is mirrored in an earlier study finding Muslim religion protective against intimate partner violence in six African countries (Alio, et al., 2010).

Beyond affiliation alone, regular church attendance was specifically protective against victimization as well (Lown & Vega, 2001; O’Connor, et al., 2023). Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement in different studies were less likely to report intimate partner victimization (Zavala & Muniz, 2020) -with the latter U.S. research team noting this finding was “consistent with prior studies looking at the relationship between religious beliefs and intimate partner violence.” For instance: 

• “Frequent church attendance” is among the factors “associated with decreased risk of violence” in Filipino homes according to Fehringer & Hindin, 2009—who report “less male perpetration if mothers attended church more often”—in line with other findings, as they say “other research supports a protective effect of church attendance on partner violence.” 
• The same research team observed in a second article that “regular church attendance by the wife” and “regular church attendance by the husband” were both associated with lower risk of perpetrating violence in a marriage (Ansara & Hindin, 2009).
• Fergusson, et al., 1986 highlighted “church attendance” as a significant factor in the frequency of “wife assault” in New Zealand—with the religious attendance of both fathers and mothers making the perpetration of victimization within their relationship less likely. They specifically found that men and women least likely to commit domestic violence were those who participate in services once a month or more are least -followed by those who attend less than monthly.
• In an analysis of U.S. couples two decades ago, Ellison, et al., 1999 likewise reported that “regular attendance at religious services” made domestic violence perpetration less likely. “Both men and women who attend religious services regularly are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence than persons who attend rarely or not at all,” they observed—noting that for men, it was only when they participated weekly that this effect showed up, while women also had a protective effect with monthly attendance. 

Overall, “religiosity does decrease (intimate partner) victimization” report Ellison, et al., 2007 based on a U.S. survey—adding that “religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence”—a “protective effect,” which they note, is “stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.”

As reflected above, studies show repeatedly that faith participation can prevent both perpetration and victimization. This seems, in part, due to pro-social teachings, avoidance of risky behavior and a sense of higher purpose and meaning.

Victims often described in studies how leaders and fellow congregants helped them get away from earlier abuse and begin to find healing. This is not always true, of course—with certain attitudes held by people of faith sometimes functioning as a barrier to healing and safety. Indeed, another set of studies point towards less healthy religious attitudes that leave women at greater risk for different kinds of abuse.

Conflicting evidence

Even so, the influence of religion is not as simple as described above—with more nuance to consider. Psychological, physical and sexual violence had a “significant association” with evangelical faith in a Brazilian study—with the authors reporting a “33% increase in intimate partner sexual abuse in life in evangelical women, compared to those who do not belong to this group” (Santos, et al., 2020). 

A set of other studies in Africa have also found families who were Muslim at greater risk of victimization (in Ethiopia Agumasie & Bezatu, 2015; in Kenya Ward & Harlow, et al., 2021; in Nigeria Bolarinwa, et al., 2022; in Malawi Forty, 2022). 

How exactly to interpret these and other seemingly contradictory findings is a critical point, something I explore in-depth in my full report. In simple form, not all religiosity is the same, with religious faith that allows men to dominate women, or which does not place serious emphasis on avoiding alcohol or casual sex, putting women (and children) at risk. 

“Misinterpretation of religious beliefs” was cited in a Pakistani analysis of influences on sexual and other kinds of violence at home, with the authors advocating for “public policy informed by correct interpretation of religion” which they said could prompt “a change in prevailing societal norms.”

In addition, there’s also evidence that sincere, “intrinsic” religious practice and conviction among men and women functions as a more powerful protector against sexual violence and other abuse, while more superficial, “extrinsic” religious conviction simply does not. It seems clear that “weak commitment to religion” could be a factor in victimization within a relationship, Vakili, et al., 2010 notes that a “woman and husband’s weak level of religious commitment” in Iran was “significantly associated with an increase in physical, sexual, and psychological abuse.” 

The authors later said that “strong religious beliefs may be instrumental in reducing the likelihood of intimate partner violence among Iranian families” (Vakili, et al., 2010). In the other direction, deeper and more sincere religious conviction shows promising effects—with “religious intensity” associated in another study with a “lower victimization count” (Sabina, et al., 2013). 

Complex, overlapping patterns of vulnerability

While this broad array of variables involved in increasing (or decreasing) the risk for sexual violence can seem overwhelming, I believe it can be invaluable to know that, broadly speaking, women and men who have experienced significant past abuse, who are under heavy current stress and financial pressures and are experiencing compromised faculties, significant conflict and real isolation, are all at much higher risk of future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have little awareness about the extent of the risk. 

By contrast, women and men who have been protected from past abuse, who are not facing current heavy stress or compromised faculties, who don’t have significant conflict or isolation, will all be significantly more protected against future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have adequate awareness about the extent of the risk. 

To the degree a woman or man falls on a higher or lower place on any of these spectrums (more past trauma, but lower stress levels today … less conflict, but also greater isolation), their level of risk (and protection) will likewise vary widely. 

In addition, women who are less educated, divorced, addicted (or with partners addicted to alcohol or pornography) are more likely to experience sexual violence—especially if they experience inadequate financial support, limited healthy community commitments, and a dearth of higher meaning and spiritual purpose in life.

Certainly, none of the above factors operates in a vacuum independent of each other—with interlinkages among all ten factors. For instance, people of faith are also more likely to avoid drug/alcohol dependency, experience nurturing social support and be happily married (while also having more children).

But overall, the research makes it clear that perpetrators focus on places where any vulnerability exists. For instance, women of younger age and much older age are both more likely to be victimized, as are those with reduced cognitive or physical capacity due to disability or prior victimization.

Some factors are more changeable than others, obviously. But even those that appear unchangeable (past abuse) have interventions that can prompt healing. On a general level, as reflected above, “a person’s routine and lifestyle influences the level of exposure one has to potential perpetrators and how vulnerable one is as a target,” as Walker, et al., 2020 state. Consequently, “the identification of variables that influence likelihood of (sexual violence) is fundamental for prevention efforts” (Thomas & Kopel, 2023). 

Alignment with other studies

Many of these themes have been identified in other attempts to survey available risk factors, such as a CDC analysis from 2016, which touched on most of the above patterns, but overlooked the potentially protective role of faith and religiosity.

This national and international data also align with demographic data collected locally in Utah, showing higher vulnerability to sexual violence among women who are homeless, with lower socioeconomic status, using drugs or alcohol, in minority groups, younger, or experiencing some kind of physical or mental impairments.

One especially impressive University of Washington literature review from 2017 concluded that the available evidence “reinforces the long-standing notion that sexual aggression is a complex behavior that emerges based on the interplay of multiple risk factors over time.”

“Additionally,” they note “there are likely very different pathways to the development of sexually aggressive behavior. 

As Casey & Masters, 2017 conclude, “This means that preventing sexual aggression before it begins necessitates prioritizing multiple risk factors, and bolstering multiple protective factors across individuals and communities.” 

The only real purpose of such study, of course, is taking better steps to protect women from sexual violence. 

Better data, better prevention

The CDC advocated nearly two decades ago for building a comprehensive ecological model that “offers a framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, relationship, social, political, cultural, and environmen­tal factors that influence sexual violence” —all of which they note can inform specific intervention and prevention steps.

In an early 2004 exploration of what sexual violence prevention programs should look like, the CDC called for prevention efforts that “work to modify and/or entirely eliminate the events, conditions, situations, or exposure to influences (risk factors) that result in the initiation of sexual violence” and thereby proactively take steps to “prevent sexual violence from initially occurring.” 

Yet a decade later in 2014, CDC researchers admitted (as I cited earlier) “rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it,” going on to describe how most prevention efforts were largely “one dimensional” attempts to change individual attitudes, and little more. 

Kathleen C. Basile, Associate Director for Science in the Division of Violence Prevention, in the Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, told me in an interview with Deseret News, “I would also add that sexual violence, intimate partner violence, all types of violence are preventable, and the way we prevent them, like you alluded to earlier, is to understand the size of the problem and who is impacted, and so the characteristics, like who the perpetrators are, who, what age, it happens, things like that” (italics my own). 

In a 2014 review of strategies to prevent sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers stated that “the vast majority of preventative interventions evaluated to date have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of impact on sexual violence perpetration behaviors.”

They went on to call for “an evidence-based, comprehensive, multi-level strategy to combat sexual violence,” suggesting that “addressing a broader range of risk and protective factors for sexual violence may be more likely to be effective.”

Two years later in 2016, the CDC released a prevention resource prevent sexual violence called “STOP SV”—noting that although the evidence for sexual violence prevention is “less developed” than other areas of prevention, “a comprehensive approach with preventive interventions at multiple levels of the social ecological model (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal) is critical to having a population level impact on SV.” But they noted that evidence remained “limited and must continuously be built through rigorous evaluation.” 

As CDC researchers summarized in 2016, “Risk for sexual violence perpetration is influenced by a range of factors, including characteristics of the individual and their social and physical environments. These factors interact with one another to increase or decrease risk for SV over time and within specific contexts.” 

CDC researchers also wrote in 2016 that “prevention strategies that address risk and protective factors for sexual violence at the community level are important components of a comprehensive approach,” before lamenting that “few such strategies have been identified or evaluated.” 

Ten life patterns that increase protection 

Our review of these root contributors paints a picture of what deeper strategies of protection would look like. For instance, men who are less educated, financially struggling, addicted, isolated, emotionally unhealthy, promiscuous and spiritually disengaged, are also more likely to perpetrate sexually on vulnerable women.

There’s also protective power in more fully appreciating that women and men who are better off economically, have good educational experiences, and are embedded within both healthy marriages and supportive communities are less vulnerable to sexual violence. This is doubly true if they also avoid substance abuse and habits of risky, casual sexual relations with multiple people, while nourishing a healthy spiritual foundation.

Here are the ten steps that follow from this research broken down: 

• Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
• Expanding educational opportunities for both women and men

• Helping nurture marriages and families that are healthy and happy

• Providing additional support for younger and larger families

• Helping to prevent compulsivity and support addicts in finding freedom

• Encouraging the value of sexually-exclusive marriages and healthy, non-aggressive masculinity

• Fostering deeper healing for mental health challenges

• Helping those who have experienced earlier abuse to work through post-traumatic symptoms

• Expanding robust community connections and durable social support

• Fostering healthy spirituality and religious connection

To see a broader summary of concrete steps, go here for the Deseret News article.  Some of these ten themes are reflected in a 2016 prevention resource released by the CDC called “STOP SV.” This resource highlighted research-based recommendations that include efforts to “provide opportunities to empower and support girls and women, support victims/survivors to lessen harms, create protective environments, teach skills to prevent sexual violence and promote social norms that protect against violence.”

As reflected above, some of the best ways to ensure women remain safe may be to proactively encourage life and community patterns proven to protect against both victimization and perpetration, including:

• Healthy marriages that are cooperative and satisfying, surrounded by layers of trustworthy community support.
• An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family, while helping both men and women avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage, and learn how to control anger and impulses.
• A hopeful environment that nurtures healing from past trauma and current mental health challenges, while ideally also providing a grounding sense of higher purpose and spiritual meaning.

According to the evidence, women embedded in this kind of a context will be significantly less likely to be sexually victimized (or abused in other ways)—compared with those living within chaotic settings with poor education, financial deficits, fraying marriages, spiritual detachment, few healing resources, rampant substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and out of control anger.

Just as any vulnerability can be exploited by perpetrators, any time a vulnerability is shored up and turned into a strength, there is more protection against multiple kinds of abuse. Therefore, if we want to get at the roots of sexual victimization, more focus needs to go towards these kinds of protective life patterns, and additional ways to encourage and promote them.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.

The post What Life Patterns Protect Against Sexual Violence? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

What conditions make violence against women more likely?

I first began asking this after an experience as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Northeastern Brazil, when we passed by a home where a woman had just, the night prior, been killed by her husband.

I’ll never forget that day. Neighbors were speaking on the street in hushed tones about how they had heard the screams. Rather than a surprise, this woman’s violent death seemed to have followed years of torment at the hands of her husband—so much so that some who lived close-by admitted they had become used to it.

How was this even possible? How could anything like this take place, I wondered, especially at the hands not of strangers, but of men most responsible to nurture, love and protect?

Women around the world continue to face disheartening levels of violence from husbands, boyfriends, dates, colleagues and sometimes strangers. Perhaps if we understood—truly understood, at a deeper level—why such abuse was taking place, we could do something more about it.

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine generously provided initial funding for me to gather a research team to gather published studies around the world that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors for sexual violence. 

Our team paid careful attention to risk factors for both sexual perpetration and victimization. The studies explored span the globe, uniting insights from dedicated research teams doing incredible work in many countries and across a wide variety of settings (campuses, workplaces and homes). We also paid careful attention to general studies of “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence,” which tend to include some degree of sexual coercion and abuse as well.

Earlier this year, I completed this review of 500 abuse studies (285 adult, 215 youth), publishing a summary version of these results in the Deseret News, and the full-length, 73 page version also posted on my Substack last month. 

In this project, we have hoped to add to the ongoing, international project to “further unravel the complicated … interactions related to victimization,” as European analysts wrote recently—ultimately considering how “specific combinations of characteristics may contribute to an increased likelihood of victimization.”

In 2014, however, other CDC researchers admitted, “Rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it.”

The good news is that if we can capture a clearer picture of what’s really making this kind of tragic violence against women more likely, we can then take more effective steps to eradicate this evil which terrorizes so many women (of all ages and backgrounds) around the world today.

Here, I provide a summary analysis of patterns that make sexual violence against women more likely—with a deeper focus on patterns in relation to faith and religiosity. After reviewing these results, I will touch on practical steps that families and communities can take—each of which follow from these findings. 

10 patterns associated with increased vulnerability

1. Fragile family economic well-being

Women growing up in difficult economic circumstances (insufficient family income, lack of employment, food insecurity) are more vulnerable to being victimized sexually—while men growing up in these same circumstances are more vulnerable to becoming sexually aggressive.

The opposite is also true in homes where economic needs are met (sufficient income, employment and food), consistently showing men and women in these families being protected from being drawn into sexual violence and other kinds of abuse too.

While having paid work outside the home acts as a preventive measure against sexual violence for some women, many studies in developing countries find the opposite—with formal employment sometimes heightening a risk of victimization for women, especially those with isolated jobs or which involve night shifts.

2. Limited educational opportunities

Studies around the world show women to be more vulnerable to sexual violence when they have little to no education. Men are also more likely to be sexually aggressive when they are illiterate, or have a lower level of formal education.

The opposite is again true, with women who have more years of education frequently less likely to be victimized and men with more education are also less likely to perpetrate sexual violence.

There are exceptions to this protective effect from education since some campus environments appear to raise the risk of sexual violence. And there are some parts of the world where a woman with more education than her husband somehow raises her risk of being victimized.

3. Living in an unhealthy, conflicted intimate relationship

Women who are divorced, cohabiting or living alone are all at greater risk for sexual violence, according to different studies. None of this means married women are automatically safer, however, with so much depending on how cooperative and happy a marriage is, along with how much serious conflict is involved.

4. Raising young children without adequate support

According to multiple studies, the presence of children in a home increases a mother’s risk level for abuse victimization generally—likely due to the added stress this places upon marriages and families.

Whether due to marital conflict, economic struggles, mental health challenges or additional children, families enduring heightened levels of stress clearly appear more vulnerable to different kinds of abuse.

Even the addition of a single child raises victimization risk, with studies also showing heightened vulnerability to abuse at the hands of an intimate partner during pregnancy. Sadly, women unable to have children face additional victimization risk. And in some parts of the world, having a daughter instead of a son likewise increases the risk of victimization.

The quality of parenting clearly makes a difference for what a child’s future safety will be as adults. A home life that is chaotic, disrupted, impoverished, with parents who are uneducated, addicted or divorced, raises the risk of eventual victimization for that child as they become an adult.

5. Drug and alcohol abuse

Few factors have received more consistent empirical verification than the impact of alcohol and drugs—not only on men who are significantly more likely to perpetrate sexually under the influence of substances, but also on women who are more likely to be sexually victimized under the influence.

As Italian researchers summarize, “alcohol can impair cognition, distort reality, increase aggression, and ease drug-facilitated sexual assault.”

Drug use can also “render a victim incapable of defending themselves or unable to avoid dangerous situations where victimization may occur” according to U.S. researchers.

This is especially true with heavy, regular substance use, which U.S. researchers in one campus study called “one factor that has been found in most studies to be associated with higher risk for sexual aggression.”

There appears to be even higher vulnerability when both a man and woman are under the influence, with one U.S. research team concluding, “the amount of alcohol consumed by both perpetrators and victims also predicted the amount of aggression and type of sexual assault.”

If you grew up in a home with alcohol or were exposed to alcohol and other substances at an early age, there’s also evidence of increased risk for sexual violence as an adult. Alcohol is also one major reason sexual violence is often higher in college, especially campuses with a cultural acceptance of heavy drinking as a social norm.

6. Early, risky, casual sexual behavior

When women have sexual experiences earlier in life, they are at greater risk of sexual violence—especially when that involves casual “hook-ups” with multiple people. One research team called this “simple probability,” in that “multiplying partners would increase the chances of being involved with a violent partner.”

Repeatedly, studies also confirm that higher numbers of sexual partners increase the likelihood of men perpetrating sexual violence.

Cohabitation and extramarital affairs likewise raise the risk of sexual violence, as does overall impulsivity. For example, gambling is associated with increased risk of both perpetration and victimization.

In the other direction, stronger impulse control and overall self-control unsurprisingly protect against sexual violence.

Relatedly, over 100 studies have linked compulsive pornography use to sexual aggression, coercion and violence against women and children. For instance, one 2015 analysis examining 22 studies from 7 different countries concluded that pornography consumption was “associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.”

7. Ongoing, significant mental health challenges

It’s expected that victims would experience depression and anxiety in the difficult aftermath of abuse. There’s also evidence that women who experience mental health problems are at greater, additional risk of being victimized sexually—as are those who endure traumatic effects from any previous abuse.

Studies also find that men with different mental health challenges, including depression and bipolar disorder, can sometimes be at greater risk of perpetration. And there are cases in which medical treatments appear to have prompted sexual aggression among male patients that was “wholly alien to their character and antithetical to their prior behavior,” in the words of one psychiatrist.

In terms of victimization, Canadian researchers also note several studies confirming that “psychotropic drug abuse” can sometimes alter women’s judgment and “keep them from recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations and defending themselves against an attack.”

8. Adverse childhood experiences and young adult aggression

The atmosphere of one’s family upbringing can influence risk for sexual victimization and perpetration as an adult. Studies highlight lower levels of earlier “family cohesion” and “emotional expressiveness in the family” as predicting later abuse.

Witnessing significant fighting between a mother and father as a child also raises later victimization risk—especially if that conflict is unresolved and leads to separation and divorce. Any type of family disruption and residential displacement increases the risk of sexual victimization and exploitation. This risk rises to an entirely new level, however, for children who have witnessed parents hurting each other physically, emotionally or sexually.

When those children get hurt emotionally or physically, they experience even more risk for victimization or perpetration when they grow up. This is especially true when children are sexually victimized, with German researchers observing that “sexual abuse in childhood increases the odds of experiencing and engaging in sexual aggression in adolescence and young adulthood.”

This has been known for decades now, with U.S. researchers stating back in 1998, “childhood sexual abuse consistently predicted sexual re-victimization in adulthood.”

That risk rises even more when multiple kinds of early abuse are involved, with Swedish researchers reporting that exposure to different kinds of abuse in childhood was “found to be the most potent risk factor for sexual violence in adulthood among adult women.”

When women experience sexual violence as a young adult—be that from a boyfriend or stranger—they are also more likely to be victimized again (even repeatedly).

9. Limited social support and expanding isolation

One pattern that seems especially clear empirically is that anytime a woman is isolated she is more at risk. This includes women who: (1) communicate less with their own family of origin, (2) live at a residence with no other adults, (3) have only a transient place of residence, (4) live in a rented house (especially by themselves), (5) work a night shift, and (6) experience barriers to healthcare access.

This may also explain why women (and children) living in a “post-conflict” zone or areas that have recently endured natural disasters experience heightened risk for sexual victimization.

In the other direction, those women who report experiencing the support of friends, family and surrounding community are less likely to be victimized sexually. 

But a lot depends on the attitudes of surrounding relationships. It’s clearly no great protection to be surrounded by in-laws or other neighbors who see violence in a marriage as “sometimes justified.” And being around friends who also experience sexual violence or normalize any kind of abuse also measurably raises the risk of victimization for women.

Clearly, not all communities have equal levels of awareness of this problem. That is even more apparent when we look back through different time periods in history when global awareness of this danger was far less.

10. Limited religious community and faith commitment

Religious faith plays an important role in the risk for sexual violence. For instance, one set of studies finds a lack of religious affiliation to be associated with more likelihood of sexual perpetration among men and sexual victimization among women. For instance: 

• “Low religious involvement” in the family raises risk for abuse among immigrant women in Spain (Vives-Cases, et al., 2014). 
• Women “lacking religious commitment” are at greater risk of victimization in Mozambique (Maguele, et al., 2020).  
• “Lack of faith and lower attendance at religious services correlated with higher levels of abuse” according to U.S. researchers—sharing their findings that women abused during pregnancy “professed less religious faith and religious service attendance” (Dunn & Oths, 2004). 
• “Being less involved in religious activities” is among the “risk factors for dating victimization” (Vézina & Hébert, 2007). 
• “Non-Christians were at increased risk for clinically significant intimate partner violence victimization” in a study of U.S. Air Force personnel (Foran, et al., 2011).
• There is higher risk of intimate partner violence among women who “practiced no religion” in a Kenyan study (Memiah, et al., 2021). 
• “Being without religion” is “associated with increased chances of rape” in a Brazilian study (Diehl, et al., 2022). 
• Citing “lack of church attendance” as one of the characteristics that are “common risk factors for abuse,” Lown & Vega, 2001 found additional evidence that “no or infrequent church attendance” among women was among a set of factors associated with more intimate partner violence. “No church attendance or infrequent church attendance significantly increased the odds of intimate partner violence” among women, they stated—adding that “religious involvement has been shown to be protective in previous studies as it was in our sample.”
• After summarizing Fergusson, et al., 1986’s finding that couples attending church most often in New Zealand were also least likely to report violence in their relationship, Ellison & Anderson, 2001 continued to describe the “graded pattern” this earlier research team found: “On the other hand, men and women who never attend religious services are much more likely than their more religious counterparts to engage in domestic violence.” This research team goes on to report their own research that “shows that religious communities can provide a haven and resource for the victims of abuse, particularly through the informal support networks of church women.”

These effects of low faith show up with male partners as well: 

• “Men with no religious affiliation” are among the “significant predictors” of intimate partner violence in another Brazilian study (Zaleski, et al., 2010). 
• Intimate partner violence is is more common among women whose husbands “attend church less frequently” according to Hindin & Adair, 2002. These researchers report in the Philippines that intimate partner violence (IPV) is “less likely with more household assets, and more frequent church attendance by the husband.” They go on to emphasize the value of “finding additional activities, like attending church, where men might be receptive to messages that discourage IPV or that promote the value of communication.” 

The patterns reviewed above make one thing unmistakably clear: sexual violence does not emerge from nowhere. It grows in environments of accumulated strain—economic fragility, relational conflict, addiction, isolation, untreated trauma, and, often, spiritual disengagement. No single factor guarantees harm. But when vulnerabilities stack, risk rises.

Understanding these patterns is not about assigning blame; it is about identifying leverage points for more effective protection. If certain life conditions consistently increase danger, then strengthening their opposites—education, stability, supportive community, emotional health, and genuine, healthy faith—becomes a meaningful path toward prevention.

In Part II, I will move from patterns of vulnerability to practical application—examining what families, congregations, and communities can proactively and specifically do to interrupt these cycles and build stronger layers of safety around women and children.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.

The post Getting at the Roots of Sexual Violence Against Women appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Across parts one and two, one theme becomes unavoidable: risk factors tend to cluster. When instability, isolation, weak supervision, emotional distress, substance use, and risky sexual behavior overlap, a child’s vulnerability rises—while the protective “friction” that would normally stop a perpetrator often falls away.

That matters because prevention can’t stay limited to awareness campaigns alone. Many communities have improved at recognizing warning signs and responding faster, but major gaps remain in proactively reducing the deeper, underlying conditions that make abuse more likely in the first place.

What follows is a prevention framework drawn directly from the patterns in the research: 10 life patterns that increase protection, with concrete steps families and communities can take to reduce opportunity for offenders and increase safety for children.

Multiple, overlapping risk factors

When less-educated parents who are no longer married and use alcohol are raising children in a home that struggles to find sufficient material resources, lacks healthy community connections and doesn’t have  any higher purpose or meaning, those children are, statistically speaking, more likely to be sexually abused, according to studies across the world.

It’s helpful to also acknowledge some overall limitations in research—for instance, research in countries outside the United States is more limited. There is also less examination in the research of both protective factors and abused boys, compared with risk factors and abused girls. 

Yet what we learn from such analyses can be hugely beneficial. Even one risk factor can have consequences, with cumulative risk emerging as these factors add up.  In one 2020 study looking at three separate “key risk indicators”—exposure to parental domestic violence, parental addiction, parental mental illness—the authors observed that “levels of child sexual abuse for women in 2010 were 28.7 percent for those experiencing all three, and 2.1 percent for women with no risk indicators. Those with two or more risk factors had between five- and eightfold higher odds of child sexual abuse.”

For instance, a younger child who has experienced significant prior trauma, is largely isolated, in a setting of high stress (poverty) and high conflict (divorce), enduring emotional disorder or substance abuse, and with limited educational background, is much more likely to experience abuse, including sexual victimization—compared with a child facing none of those environmental conditions. 

Likewise, an adult or older teen who has experienced significant prior trauma, is largely detached from other relationships, enduring immense current stress (financially or otherwise) and high surrounding conflict, enduring emotional disorder or substance abuse, and with limited educational background is more likely to perpetrate abuse on others—including sexual violence, compared with an adult or older teen with none of those conditions. 

Overall, we can see that various lifestyle patterns constitute a substantial risk burden for victimization. “Health-related risk-taking behaviors are associated with the likelihood of being a victim of violence” research on adolescent lifestyle risk and violent victimization shows, from data on students in South Carolina who reported engaging in risky lifestyles like drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity and faced increased risks of being victims of dating violence. They call this a “lifestyles theory explanation of violent victimization in adolescent dating relationships.”

In summary, children will have very different levels of vulnerability to sexual violence depending on the atmospheres and family/community lifestyles they are being raised in. These clear patterns in the risk-factor literature can thus act as powerful signals to guide more effective prevention strategies. Based on our review, we outline below what that might look like.

10 life patterns that increase protection 

A tremendous amount of effort over recent decades has gone to the prevention of abuse in all its forms, including the most tragic of all: child sexual abuse. Much of that has centered around awareness raising efforts—such as teaching children the difference between good and bad touch and helping adults become more vigilant to watch for signs of abuse.

Despite significant benefits from these and other encouraging efforts, the CDC highlights “critical gaps” in the U.S. response, with “few effective evidence-based strategies available to proactively protect children from child sexual abuse.”

This U.S. agency then emphasizes our need to “increase our understanding of risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization”—which can guide, in the words of Norwegian researchers, more “targeted prevention strategies for children and adolescents.”

That’s why I believe these patterns above can be so helpful—informing more proactive steps to further protect children. Notice how many researchers have been calling for the same thing: 

• “Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research ,” Zych & Marín-López emphasize, calling for “more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers.” 
• “ Novel data on perpetrators of the violence and the risk factors for experiencing violence ,” Pankowiak et al. state, “provides further context to inform safeguarding strategies.” 
• “By identifying and understanding the systemic factors which enable child sexual abuse ,” Dodd et al. write, in the context of sports, “more effective prevention and policy interventions can be developed to make sport safer for children.” 
• “Knowledge of the risk and protective factors ,” Owusu-Addo et al. agree, “can guide and inform the development” of better prevention programs. 
• This aligns with other efforts to develop “a prediction model to identify those at greatest risk ”—specifically aiming to “identify youths at greatest risk before they are harmed.” 

These patterns point to straightforward implications that are often overlooked in public discourse.. Based on our review, children raised by educated, happily married in homes with adequate financial support, nourishing community connections and a sincere and healthy religious commitment, those children are far less likely to get caught up in drugs and alcohol and are less likely to be victimized sexually. 

More specifically, here are 10 steps that could protect children based on these findings:

1. Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
2. Expanding educational opportunities for mothers, fathers and children
3. Helping ensure more children are raised within a healthy marriage and continue into adulthood with happy family ties
4. Strengthening exhausted parents’ ability to nurture their children and create strong bonds
5. Surrounding children and families with layers of trustworthy social support
6. Proactively encouraging more lasting emotional healing
7. Encouraging teens to delay sexual behavior until marriage
8. Teaching empathy, compassion and self-control to those struggling with aggression and anger
9. Helping prevent youth drinking and support adults in finding freedom
10. Embedding children in a healthy spiritual/religious atmosphere

(A broader summary of these concrete steps is available in the Deseret News — with my full analysis of all 215 sexual abuse studies available at my Substack.) As reflected here, some of the best ways to ensure children experience reduced risk for sexual exploitation may be to find ways to encourage an upbringing embedded within:

• Healthy marriages with parents willing to nurture lasting attachments to their children—with back-up support from multiple protective layers of trustworthy community connections.
• An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family.
• An environment where teens are encouraged to avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage and learn how to control their anger and impulses.
• An atmosphere where youth and adults are provided with support for deeper healing when current emotional struggles exist or previous abuse has taken place.
• An environment where faith, spirituality and religious community provide children and parents with higher purpose and deeper meaning to life.

According to the available research literature, a child raised in this context will be significantly less likely to be victimized sexually (and by other forms of abuse). By contrast, a child raised within an atmosphere of conflicted or broken families, neglectful parents, poor education, financial deficits, spiritual detachment, limited healing resources, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, community acceptance of aggression and out of control anger, faces a higher risk.

Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project. 

The post Life Patterns That Increase Protection Against Child Sexual Abuse appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Part one in my series on the risks of sexual assault focused on five broad conditions that repeatedly appear in the research about heightened vulnerability to child sexual abuse: fragile economic stability, limited education, the absence of a stable two-parent relationship, low-quality parent-child bonds, and weak community accountability.

In part two, the evidence turns toward a different cluster of factors—patterns that often show up in the lives of victims and perpetrators: significant mental-health struggles, early and risky sexual behavior (including exposure to sexually explicit content), aggression and impulsivity, and drug and alcohol influence.

This article also examines the research on faith and religiosity. The findings are more complex than many people assume. Healthy religious practice functions as a protective layer in a number of studies—often indirectly, by shaping peer networks, substance use, and sexual risk-taking. But religious identity alone is never a guarantee of safety, and faith settings can also be exploited when adults are unaccountable or when communities fear the consequences of transparency.

What follows are five patterns of individual behavioral risks associated with childhood sexual assault—not as moral judgments about families or youth, but as population-level signals that help clarify where prevention and safeguarding can be strongest.

Ongoing, Significant Mental Health Struggles

While you would expect poor mental health in the aftermath of abuse, there’s repeated evidence that young people who struggle with various mental health challenges are also more likely to be victimized sexually, as well as to become perpetrators themselves.

This appears to be largely due to the emotional vulnerabilities associated with high levels of despair, hopelessness, fear, and anger. But it’s also clear that some psychiatric treatments can involve emotional blunting and heightened indifference—making affected youth more likely to be sexually victimized.

There’s also evidence for “drug-induced activation” and manic symptoms in treated youth that can sometimes manifest as excessive hypersexuality and uncharacteristic sexual aggression against other youth.

Where abuse has taken place, it’s especially critical to help young victims receive as much compassionate support as possible to heal from earlier trauma. That’s confirmed by abundant evidence showing that previous abuse of any kind sets up a child for future sexual victimization and perpetration.

Early, Risky, Casual Sexual Behavior

A significant number of studies find that youth who are sexually active at a younger age or who have multiple, casual sexual partners are at heightened risk of being sexually victimized or becoming perpetrators.

Adults who are hyper-sexual are also at greater risk of perpetrating sexual violence against children. This is especially true in the presence of cognitive distortions that justify exploiting children as a legitimate “need” that doesn’t “really harm” the child.

More than 100 studies have likewise linked compulsive pornography use to sexual aggression, coercion and violence against women and children, contrary to industry-friendly messaging that mass consumption of explicit material somehow “reduces” sexual violence.

One 2023 review of 27 studies involving 16,200 young participants in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa concluded that “significant associations were found between exposure to both violent and nonviolent sexual content” and the likelihood of engaging in “problematic sexual behaviors” (frequently involving force, coercion and aggression).

Aggression, Lack Of Empathy And Impulsivity

Young people who display a marked lack of empathy, along with significant anger and hostility, are more likely to be involved in sexual violence. This is especially true if boys show a behavioral pattern of fighting, conduct disorders, and disciplinary problems at school. Penn State researchers found that “delinquent youth” were “more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the abuse, to initiate the sexual encounter and to experience repeat victimizations.”

Young people who spend time with “delinquent” friends are also more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse against others and be victimized themselves—especially if they demonstrate consistent patterns of aggression, impulsivity and rule-breaking. These are the patterns U.S. researchers find lead to a “heightened risk for most types of victimization.”

Dutch researchers reported in 2023 that “impulsivity increases the odds of future sexual victimization as a child.” And German researchers found earlier that the lack of self-control likewise predicts “sexually aggressive behaviors” among adolescent boys.

Adults who display low empathy and callous, aggressive, criminal patterns—as well as an overall lack of impulse control—are also more likely to sexually offend against children.

Drug And Alcohol Influences On Both Youth And Adults

Substance abuse has multifaceted impacts on abuse, starting at home—since the children of parents who use alcohol are more likely to be sexually victimized and to sexually offend against other children. 

Teenage boys who use substances, both drugs and alcohol, are more likely to sexually abuse others. And teenage girls who use alcohol are also more vulnerable to being sexually victimized by other adolescents and adults.

This is true in a dating context as well, with University of Maryland researchers summarizing: “substance abuse during a date is linked to experiences of sexual and physical violence.” Even “being in places where one’s friends are drinking alcohol” is “associated with an increased risk of victimization” according to the same scholars.

Adults who sexually abuse children often struggle with drugs and alcohol as well—this frequently being one of many factors bringing a man (or woman) to the point of being willing to exploit someone so vulnerable.

Limited Faith Commitments And Religious Practice 

Young people who report infrequent attendance at church show heightened risk for both sexual victimization and perpetration. For instance, “low frequency of attendance to religious services” was identified in a survey of 250 high school teens as one of the “socio-cultural factors that affect the kind and intensification” of family abuse that includes sexual violence. 

Other studies report “not having religious affiliations” as a risk factor for sexual violence—with young girls who report their religious affiliation as Protestants compared to those with no religious affiliation. Among other things, these researchers hypothesized that “girls who do not have religious affiliations could be marginalized and socially isolated.” 

The protection of a healthy faith

By contrast, youth who report frequent attendance at church have repeatedly been found in studies within different countries to have less risk for abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence—especially when they demonstrate “intrinsic religiosity” (sincere faith).

For instance, adolescent girls who rated themselves as very religious in a 2021 South African study were 80 percent less likely to describe any previous experience of sexual violence in their lives compared to girls who were not religious. In addition: 

• Church attendance was identified as protective in a survey of Puerto Rico students from 117 schools, making violent behavior between adolescents less likely.
• “Religious service attendance” was a central variable associated with a lower prevalence of recent dating violence.
• Church attendance and religiosity protected against perpetration of sexual violence among high school students. 

The Sexual Satisfaction and Function Survey asked nearly 1,400 women in 2019-2020 whether they had experienced sexual abuse as a teen, and how often they attended religious services during high school. In a new analysis of the data, Stephen Cranney found that women who reported attending religious services weekly during their high school years were significantly less likely to talk about experiencing sexual abuse as a teen, compared with those who were less religious in high school.

These same trends show up in research on sexual minority youth as well: 

• In a survey of 117 adolescents in same-sex relationships, those who reported that religion was important to them were at lower risk of “any violence.”
• A study of sexual and gender minority youth found spirituality was among protective factors associated with lower likelihood of adverse outcomes, including sexual violence victimization and perpetration.
• Spirituality also emerged as a significant protective factor associated with lower risk of sexual violence victimization among high school students, as replicated in a follow-up paper.

This goes against common biases in the research community. One researcher set out with a hunch that “authoritarian ideology, including religious conservativism (which) endorses obedience to authority” might also correlate with the “mistreatment of children.” But on closer examination, political and religious conservativism both predicted lower child abuse rates.

How faith shapes other variables playing a role

Studies also identified a number of other variables that play an indirect role in increasing or reducing sexual violence—each of which are tied to the level of religious commitment in a teenager: 

• More risky sex—Adolescent females “for whom religion was not or only somewhat personally important” had higher odds of participating in “riskier sex” in one multi-factor analysis. 

• More negative friends—Elevated levels of “religious coping” were indirectly protective against violence by reinforcing “less antisocial bonding” among high-risk youth in a longitudinal study.
• More substance abuse—A “personal belief in God” and “parent religiosity” were connected with less adolescent substance use in one survey-based study. It’s long been known that illicit drug use decreases among young people as belief in God increases in broader population research, or they are involved in a spiritual system that provides grounding (including Buddhism, as shown in cross-cultural work).

Consistently, one study found high-risk behaviors fully mediated the link between religious activity and dating violence. Another paper likewise cites research suggesting that “values upheld by the clergy and their peers who attend church could also reinforce youths’ personal values against violence and/or high-risk behavior.”

In the other direction, one analysis highlights research linking religiosity with stronger bonds to family members and school. Another paper adds that stronger bonds to family members and school mean that a youth will spend greater time with parents and other adults in schools that will act as the child’s ‘handler.’ These handlers will protect the child from engaging in criminal behavior, which will decrease the odds of victimization.

Religious children are still abused far too much

None of this is to minimize heartbreaking instances where a child is assaulted in a religious home, or by a perpetrator acting in a religious position. And, indeed, there is no such protective religious influence in a home or community where children are harshly controlled and manipulated by domineering adults. When such devastating abuse is perpetrated by a person of such immense trust, it can prompt in a young person what one scholar described as “rage and spiritual distress that pervades their entire life being.”

As two researchers argued in 2010, “the particular nature of religiosity needs to be considered when interpreting a connection between religiosity and abuse risk”—going on to highlight differences in the “underlying motivation for an individual’s religion.” The authors suggest that “Religiosity per se may not be as critical to predicting physical abuse risk as selected approaches to religion or particular attitudes the religious individual assumes in their daily life.” 

In response to the same article, another researcher in 2011 pointed out that “it is very common for social distortions and individual pathology to be hidden by groups and individuals behind a religious construction, misconception or misinterpretation.” The same researcher also underscored that “the fundamental concept of the major religions in the world deal with loving one’s fellow man, caring for the family and one’s children, and being a positive element in the community (with kindness and charity).”

Like other communities, faith communities are actively taking more steps around the world to prevent such tragedies. Meanwhile, it seems clear that healthy and cooperative religious communities generally reduce victimization, in part, because children with such a faith commitment shaping their lives and homes typically engage in less risky sex, less substance abuse and have fewer negative friends.

In part three, I look at what happens when these risk factors stack and their effects are combined—and the specific protective patterns the research suggests can reduce harm before it occurs.

The post Behavior Patterns Associated with Sexual Abuse of Children appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Several years ago, Public Square Magazine provided initial funding for a research team to gather published studies that get at the roots of this question. Our small team reviewed thousands of studies to identify those focused specifically on risk factors making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse by parents, other relatives, or older teenagers.

These studies from around the world also examine the assault of children ages six to twelve and teenagers in various contexts, including competitive sports clubs, youth-serving nonprofits, churches, and schools, with dating violence also receiving much more attention in recent decades.

For many years, scholarship emphasized individual offenders and individual victims—perpetrator motives, disorders, and victim-level correlates. In more recent decades, researchers have increasingly examined the broader context around abuse: family stability, supervision, peer dynamics, institutional oversight, and community accountability—what some studies call “enabling factors” that make abuse easier to commit and harder to detect.

Last summer, I completed this in-depth review of approximately 500 abuse studies (285 involving adults, 215 involving youth), publishing summary versions of results focused on children and adult victims in the Deseret News, with the full-length, 60-page version released later that fall.  

This three-part series synthesizes findings from that deep dive into the risk factor research focused on the sexual abuse of young people. Part one outlines five recurring patterns that show up across countries and contexts—patterns that tend to increase vulnerability to child sexual abuse by weakening stability, supervision, and community safeguards.

Fragile Economic Well-Being 

Consistently, studies demonstrate that children growing up in families and neighborhoods with limited economic resources are more likely to experience sexual victimization—a risk that appears to grow as poverty deepens (parents unemployed, families going without food, living in substandard housing, adolescents forced to work).

The opposite is also true. For instance, youth whose fathers were employed were “about four times less likely to experience sexual abuse than respondents whose fathers were unemployed,” according to one Nigerian study from 2017.

Limited Educational Opportunities

Children with lower levels of education are more vulnerable to victimization—especially those who drop out completely. As Canadian researchers summarized in a 2007 review, “adolescents who have no intention of pursuing postsecondary schooling or who have not obtained their high school diploma are at greater risk of being victims of sexual and physical violence.”

By comparison, when children grow up where education is encouraged and valued, they are less likely to be sexually victimized. This shows up first in analyses of parental education level—with studies from Africa to Brazil to the U.S. showing that boys and girls whose parents have more education are also more likely to be protected against victimization (with risk consistently increasing as parental education declines).

Children’s own higher education level also decreases this risk, starting with just being in school at all. This is especially true if the schools are smaller, if the child feels comfortable at the school, and if they are doing well academically.

Growing Up Without Both Parents in a Loving Relationship

Following parental separation, divorce, or death, a child naturally experiences more residential instability and often significantly less parental supervision. That frequently includes a greater likelihood of being in close, regular contact with other older men who are “not the biological father.”

Consistently, children with incarcerated fathers also were 5.5 times more likely to experience child sexual abuse in one New Zealand analysis. Even higher risk comes when children live with neither of their parents, such as living with friends or another relative; living in foster care or other institutions; or especially if they are homeless and on the streets.

By contrast, multiple studies found that children living with both parents are less likely to be victimized—with the same Nigerian analysis finding children living in these homes “two times less likely to experience sexual abuse.”

Although most sexual abuse happens within homes, studies repeatedly show that children growing up with married parents are less likely to be abused in any way, including sexually. This is especially true when that marital relationship is cooperative and healthy—with “parental togetherness” and “harmony” identified in the Nigerian study as “protective factors that buffer children from sexual abuse.”

No such marital protections exist, however, in the presence of significant amounts of conflict and other kinds of emotional and physical aggression in the marriage and home generally. Another African study found a 2.5-fold increased risk of children being sexually abused when they experienced conflict between parents—a result that aligns with some U.S. data.

Low Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship

While you would expect negative parent-child relationships within any abusive context, there is repeated evidence that poor relationships with a mother and father also precede and predict abuse of various kinds, including sexual violence.

Available studies look specifically at vulnerability to victimization connected to a “lack of closeness” with a parent and “low warmth” relationships within a “rigid” family climate. Children whose parents display harsh, authoritarian parenting behavior are also at greater risk of being sexually victimized.

One Canadian study of abusive coaches observed how they often admitted to persuading mothers and fathers to “relinquish some or all parental control” to themselves—with the researchers acknowledging that “for the abused athlete, the bond of trust established between him or herself and the perpetrator is often a substitute for a weak relationship with a parent.”

By contrast, studies in Africa and the U.S. found, unsurprisingly, that “high” and “frequent parental monitoring” is connected with less sexual violence against children and teens. This is also true for positive, warm, healing relationships between parents and children overall.

Spotty Community Accountability

To the extent any community has allowed isolated access to children historically, this has sadly been shown to raise the risk of victimization. That includes abuse connected with ‘unguarded access to children’ by religious leaders, ‘unsupervised coaches,’ rogue law enforcement officers, predatory physicians, leaders of boys’ and girls’ clubs, and other organizations where perpetrators can seek out ‘volunteer work with organizations through which they can meet children.’

One study of 41 serial perpetrators found that 57 percent reported having picked their profession either partly or specifically in order to access children. Such privileged, close contact with youth is often taken for granted within special trusted roles—clergy, coach, teacher, mentor, counselor, camp staff, and scout leader.

This is also why healthy peer groups make such a difference, and why negative friend and sibling relationships increase the risk of children being sexually abused. That includes settings where older adolescents have “unsupervised opportunity with younger victims.”

In the absence of this kind of proactive, robust community supervision, what’s clear is that isolation of any kind appears to be quickly exploited by adult and older teenage perpetrators. Australian researchers report that sibling sexual abuse is “the most common form of intra-familial child sexual abuse”—an outcome that is more likely among “step-siblings and half-siblings,” when compared with full siblings.

Five groups of young people, in particular, experience higher levels of sexual violence: (1) girls; (2) younger children; (3) youth who identify as sexual/gender minorities; (4) children who have experienced abuse previously; and (5) children with disabilities—all of whom consistently show higher risk for sexual victimization.

In part two, we turn to patterns tied more directly to mental health, risk behaviors, substances, and the evidence on faith and religiosity—factors that can either amplify vulnerability or strengthen protection depending on how they play out in real communities.

If you or someone you love has experienced sexual assault of any kind and needs additional support in the U.S., contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline (1-800-656-HOPE)—with virtual and text-based options available. This is a confidential networking service in the U.S. that helps connect victims with local agencies that can offer therapeutic support across the country. Similar kinds of hotlines exist in many countries around the world.

The post The Hidden Conditions that Leave Children Vulnerable to Abuse appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Almost immediately, everyone did what everyone always does when “the files” drop: they hunted names, screenshotted fragments, stitched narratives together, and treated the internet like a jury box. But even major outlets covering the release have warned that the dump is chaotic, heavily redacted, and incomplete in ways that make confident conclusions difficult—while victims and advocates have criticized the process for exposing survivors while leaving many alleged enablers opaque.

And yet, even with all that noise, something clear has emerged for Latter-day Saints: this release was a stress test for decades of anti-Mormon conspiracy storytelling—and the conspiracy didn’t show up.

The test conspiracy-peddlers didn’t expect to fail

For a long time, a certain genre of anti-Mormon commentary has insisted on two overlapping claims:

1. That there is a uniquely large, uniquely hidden sexual abuse problem inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, driven or protected from the top; and
2. That senior leaders are “globalists” quietly entangled in elite power networks—exactly the kind of networks epitomized by Epstein.

To be plain: there have been horrific abuse cases involving members of the Church, and those cases deserve honest reporting—not dismissal.

But the claim at issue here isn’t “abuse exists” (it does, tragically, in every sizable institution). The claim is that the Church’s top leadership is part of a shadowy sexual corruption on one side, global influence schemes on the other.

If that were true, this was the moment it should have detonated.

Instead, it didn’t.

A worldwide net—and nothing where critics promised a catch

The whole point of an Epstein document dump, in the public imagination, is that it catches people from “all kinds of quarters.” And it has: major coverage has focused on public figures, political operators, and celebrity relationships; the whole world is sifting and speculating.

So what about the Church? Where are the receipts that a certain corner of the internet has promised for years?

In the Utah-adjacent reporting that’s surfaced from the latest release, the most concrete “Mormon-world” items being discussed are mundane and geographically local—things like travel notes involving Park City, and paying a likely victim’s tuition for Brigham Young University–Idaho, and someone writing to Epstein mentioned Elder Dale G. Renlund was presenting at a health conference.

If you tell the world for decades that senior Church leaders are entangled in the very elite sexual machinery the Epstein story represents, then the largest public release of Epstein-related material should show it. Instead, it shows, at most, the kind of peripheral, often banal “Utah shows up in a massive dataset” traces you’d expect when you dump millions of pages spanning years and continents.

The “most damning” line—and why it still doesn’t land

Critics have understandably tried to elevate a single muddled excerpt—circulating online from an email labeled “EFTA02437604”—as the long-awaited smoking gun. In that excerpt, Epstein appears to write (in a typo-riddled sentence) about “wayne owens … from utah,” references “pons and cold fusion,” and includes the phrase “had [to/ot] meet with the head of the mormon church.”

Epstein suggested in 2009 that in 1989, when he argued against funding cold fusion research, he met with the “head of the mormon church,” presumably because such funding would have gone to Utah.  

No name for who he meant. The memory is twenty years old. Not even a claim that the meeting was desired by church leaders. And the topic was mundane decades before Epstein’s sexual abuse networks were known. 

I imagine some will attempt to squeeze continued criticism out of the line. But what we have been promised by the anti-Mormon conspiracists for years clearly did not exist. In fact, the Church and its leaders have remained so clear of Epstein and its associates that it should broadly be seen as a positive for their moral character. 

Why this should change the conversation—on both sides

If you’re a critic, this moment is an invitation to intellectual honesty. The Epstein files—massive, messy, and full of all kinds of names—were supposed to be the hammer blow. Instead, they have not delivered what the most confident anti-Mormon allegations promised.

And if you’re a believer, this moment is not an excuse for a victory lap. There are real victims who must remain the focus of care and attention. And remember, the data remains partial and contested. We shouldn’t claim this means more than it does. 

The Epstein files—whatever else one thinks about this sprawling, troubled, often infuriating release—have provided a rare public opportunity to compare conspiracy claims against a truly enormous body of material. And when it comes to the most sensational anti-Mormon accusations about senior Church leaders—secret globalist schemes, Epstein ties, sexual impropriety—the result is not “finally, we got them.” 

The result is: nothing. At the end of the day, behind all the sturm and drang was just normal people. 

That doesn’t make the Church above scrutiny. We all have much work to do in continuing to help victims in every corner. But perhaps we can now do it based on the truth. It should make everyone—members and critics alike—more reluctant to trade in insinuation when the moral stakes are this high.

The post The Conspiracy That Wasn’t appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Bravo’s three‑part limited series Surviving Mormonism with Heather Gay leans into difficult personal stories and pointed criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints. Episode one premiered Nov. 11, with all three parts streaming on Peacock the next day; the trailer and network page frame the project as revealing the religion’s “dark history.” The hook is effective: the testimonies are raw, the stakes high. So how do we address these problems? 

Lessons From Other Institutions’ Hard Lessons

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is far from the first organization to have three or more troubling incidents occur among its membership. Across faith, civic, and community settings, major investigations have revealed troubling stories that have led to the implementation of harm-reducing best practices. 

1) Clear Pathways to Civil Authorities
Every credible blueprint insists on uncomplicated routes to law enforcement. The painful proof came into focus in the USA Gymnastics scandal. For years, athletes reported Larry Nassar’s abuse to coaches, trainers, and officials, only to see their disclosures trapped in internal channels, bounced between organizations, or delayed while leaders worried about reputations and jurisdiction. Congressional investigations concluded that this web of overlapping responsibilities and in‑house handling helped enable his crimes.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in England and Wales—after seven years of studying abuse in churches, schools, care homes, local authorities, and youth organizations—reached a similar conclusion: confusing internal routes and deference to institutional reputation repeatedly left children unprotected. Both SafeSport and IICSA’s recommendations are built on the same insight. When allegations are routed through slow, internal channels, cases stall and perpetrators move on; when pathways to civil authorities and independent safeguarding bodies are direct, simple, and well‑trained, reports increase, patterns are detected earlier, and children are safer. 

2) “Two‑Deep” (No One‑on‑One) Supervision—Everywhere Youth Are Present
The clearest example of why one‑on‑one contact is so dangerous came in the Boy Scouts of America abuse scandal. As lawsuits and internal “ineligible volunteer” files became public, they showed how serial offenders had repeatedly used solo hikes, tenting arrangements, and car rides to isolate and groom youth with little or no immediate oversight. Part of what made the problem so intractable was structural: the program still allowed adults to be alone with non‑family youth in ways that created predictable opportunities for abuse.

In response, Scouting tightened its rules into a strict “two‑deep leadership” and “no one‑on‑one contact” standard. No adult is to be alone with a child who is not their own in any program setting—at meetings, on campouts, or in transit—with electronic communications governed by the same spirit. The point is not to question leaders’ sincerity but to design the system so that temptation and opportunity are sharply reduced.

Over time, youth‑serving organizations across the country—sports leagues, camps, community programs, and churches—have copied this approach because insurers, risk managers, and child‑safety experts all converge on the same conclusion: when adults are never alone with unrelated children, grooming becomes harder, disclosures are more likely to be observed by a second adult, and overall risk drops. Two‑deep supervision is not a cure‑all, but it is one of the simplest structural safeguards to duplicate anywhere children are present. 

3) Mandatory, Role‑Specific Training and Renewal
At Minnesota’s Anoka‑Hennepin School District, nine students died by suicide in less than two years, at least four of whom were gay or perceived to be gay. Investigations and a civil‑rights lawsuit documented a climate of anti‑gay bullying: students were shoved, spat on, urinated on, and told to kill themselves, while staff often minimized or failed to respond. The net effect was a system where harassment flourished, and adults lacked both clarity and skills.

In 2012, the district agreed to a comprehensive, court‑enforced settlement that forced a systemic overhaul. Among other changes, Anoka‑Hennepin hired a Title IX coordinator, strengthened mental‑health support, and—crucially—committed to mandatory annual training for all staff who interact with students, the revised policies, and their duty to act. Peer‑leadership programs and annual student meetings were also required to address harassment and explain how to get help.

The lesson travels well. In a large system with many well‑intentioned adults, problems don’t persist because people are uniquely cruel, but because they are untrained, unclear about their authority, and afraid of “getting in trouble” for speaking up. When training is optional or generic, many adults remain passive bystanders; when every teacher, coach, bus driver, and aide is required to complete targeted, recurring training, the culture shifts, students are more likely to be believed, and dangerous patterns are interrupted earlier.

4) Centralized Records and Portability of Warnings
For years, the Southern Baptist Convention assumed that because each congregation was autonomous, the national body could do little more than issue statements. Survivors who tried to warn denominational leaders were often told nothing more could be done, even as reports accumulated about the same individuals. The 2022 independent investigation by Guidepost Solutions exposed the cost of that “loose polity” model: there was no maintained, denomination‑wide database, no consistent escalation process, and no one charged with seeing patterns across churches. Allegations sat in private files, internal lists documented names that local search committees never saw, and known offenders were able to move from congregation to congregation undetected.

The scandal spurred a shift. In the wake of the report, Southern Baptists created an Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force, began work on a public “Ministry Check” database of pastors and leaders credibly accused or convicted of abuse, and started debating stronger, convention‑wide expectations for background checks and information‑sharing. The goal is simple: when a church considers calling a pastor or staff member, it should be able to check a central resource rather than relying only on informal references or word of mouth.

Although the reforms are still developing and remain the subject of intense internal debate, the underlying logic is sound and widely echoed in other sectors: when credible warnings are captured in one place and made available to decision‑makers, it becomes much harder for abusers to outrun their history by simply changing employers or congregations. Even decentralized systems need centralized tracking and escalation if they want to stop perpetrators from starting over in a new community. 

5) Survivor Support and Redress
In Australia, decades of revelations about institutional abuse—especially in Catholic parishes and schools, Salvation Army boys’ homes, and state‑run care—showed a common pattern: when children finally disclosed what had happened, institutions quietly moved abusers on, fought civil claims aggressively, and offered only limited pastoral support. The mounting evidence that clergy and other carers had been shuffled from place to place instead of being reported to police led the federal government in 2013 to establish the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

After five years of public hearings and thousands of survivor accounts, the Royal Commission concluded that such a history could not be addressed by apologies alone. One of its key recommendations was the creation of a National Redress Scheme, funded by government and participating institutions, to provide survivors with a package that includes counseling, a direct personal response from the responsible institution, and a monetary payment as tangible acknowledgment of harm. Many major churches and charities have joined the scheme; institutions that refuse to participate can now be publicly identified and pressured to do so.

Whatever its limits and delays, the scheme embodies a hard‑won consensus: institutions that failed children must contribute to their healing in concrete, material ways—not just in words. These frameworks are sobering reminders that apologies must be joined to tangible care. 

6) Culture and Communications: Humility Beats Reputation Management
Chicago Public Schools is one vivid example of how “reputation first” thinking harms children. A 2018 newspaper investigation and a scathing federal Title IX review documented cases in which students’ allegations of sexual violence were mishandled or ignored, staff failed to notify police, and the system’s main instinct was to protect the district rather than victims.

While no large district can claim perfection, watchdog reports and follow‑up coverage now focus less on cover‑ups and more on whether the new office has enough staff and resources to do its work. Similar cultural critiques appear in IICSA’s Anglican case studies and in U.S. Senate hearings on the Nassar scandal in Olympic sport: institutions minimized or deflected to protect their brand, and only when that instinct was repudiated—and replaced with clear structures and accountability—did real reform begin. In all these arenas, the shift from reputation first to safety first is measured not in slogans but in whether disclosures reach police quickly, victims receive services, and leaders welcome independent scrutiny.

How the Church of Jesus Christ Has Performed on These Six Lessons

With decades of sad lessons learned, how is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doing in implementing these best practices?

1) Clear Pathways to Civil Authorities and Outside Help

As early as the mid‑1990s, the Church created a confidential ecclesiastical abuse help line for bishops and stake presidents. Long before SafeSport or CPS‑style offices existed, local lay leaders had 24/7 access to legal and clinical professionals whose explicit mandate was to help victims and ensure compliance with reporting laws.

By the mid‑2010s, member‑facing resources on ChurchofJesusChrist.org were already teaching ordinary members that if they know or suspect abuse, they should report to civil authorities first and then seek additional spiritual and practical support from Church leaders and professional counselors.

The current Abuse Help Line and “Abuse—How to Help” pages now make this even more explicit: leaders are instructed to call the help line every time they learn of abuse, and members are told to contact legal authorities immediately and then work with their bishop or stake president, who in turn is required to use the help line. The help line is utilized to ensure that proper reports are made directly to the appropriate authorities in line with local privacy laws. Recent updates to the General Handbook and the “Protecting Children and Youth” page in 2024–25 again reinforce that reporting to civil authorities is not optional and that no leader should ever discourage or block a report.

2) Two‑Deep Supervision and No One‑on‑One Settings

Well before many school districts or community programs embraced two‑adult standards, the Church began strengthening its expectations around supervision. By 2006, the Church Handbook of Instructions required two adult supervisors for activities, a policy that continued to be iterated and tightened to cover children’s Sunday School (primary) classes, women and men, and ecclesiastical interviews, among others.  

These principles were built into the 2020 General Handbook and then expanded in the 2025 updates under headings such as “Safeguarding Children,” “Classes for Youth,” and “Adult Supervision.” Region‑specific safeguarding pages (for example, in the United Kingdom) repeat the same standards and adapt them to local legal requirements.

By the time other systems were being forced into similar standards through lawsuits or consent decrees, Latter‑day Saints had already received global, written instructions embedding two‑adult supervision into ordinary ward life. Those standards continue to be reiterated in new training and safety pages, making the Church one of the more structurally safe environments for one‑on‑one adult–youth contact in the congregational world.

3) Mandatory, Role‑Specific Training and Renewal

In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ had produced training materials for bishops on how to understand and recognize abuse, and then provided step-by-step guidance on how to respond. 

This publication was quoted in later manuals as an early training, though implementation was not mandatory or systematic. The Church provided similar materials for all members in two 1997 publications: “Preventing and Responding to Spouse Abuse” and “Child Abuse: Helps for Members.”

In the early aughts, the Church produced a DVD Responding to Child Abuse to be played at ward and branch council meetings with an associated pamphlet. In 2008, the First Presidency wrote a letter to be read in leadership trainings explaining to leaders how to protect victims. 

Continuing and incremental improvements were made through the 2010s. In 2019, the Church moved to a more formal system with the launch of Children and Youth Protection Training for leaders and volunteers in the United States and Canada, accompanied by a directive from the Priesthood and Family Department that those in relevant callings must complete the training, formally systematizing best practices training.

4) Centralized Records and Portability of Warnings

Long before the current wave of abuse reporting, the Church built its ecclesiastical life around centralized membership records rather than purely local rolls. That meant that serious concerns raised in a membership council did not simply disappear when someone moved; there was a mechanism to mark records, restrict transfers, and ensure that new leaders received needed background.

In the current General Handbook, those instincts are made explicit. Instructions on membership councils and move restrictions explain how a bishop or stake president can place a hold on a membership record when serious concerns are pending, and how decisions from councils are reported centrally.

The Handbook’s policies on abuse specify that when a person has sexually abused a child or youth—or seriously abused a child physically or emotionally—their membership record is annotated. Members with such annotations are not to receive callings or assignments involving children or youth, are not to be assigned as ministering companions to youth, and are not to be given ministering assignments to households with children or youth. These restrictions follow the member wherever they move because the annotation is part of the central record. In a world where many congregational networks are only now building abuse databases after devastating investigations, Latter‑day Saints have the advantage of a long‑standing global membership system and clear written policies about annotations and move restrictions. 

5)Survivor Support and Redress

For decades, Church leaders have been instructed that their first responsibility when abuse occurs is to help the victim and protect the vulnerable. Gospel Topics essays and counseling resources emphasize that victims are not at fault, that abuse is a serious sin, and that leaders should help survivors access both spiritual care and professional counseling.

Handbook instructions have long allowed bishops to use fast‑offering funds to help members pay for professional counseling when they cannot do so themselves. That principle—combining pastoral care with tangible financial assistance—has been part of Latter‑day Saint welfare practice for years, even if it was not framed in the language of “redress schemes.”

Recent materials have made this more visible and explicit. A 2018 Ensign article and subsequent online lessons on recognizing and healing from abuse gave members and leaders concrete steps for support. A more recent newsroom article, “How Latter‑day Saints Approach Abuse,” states plainly that the Church offers and often covers the cost of professional counseling for victims, regardless of their ability to pay, and directs leaders again to use fast offerings where needed. International safeguarding pages, such as those in the United Kingdom and in responses to national inquiries in New Zealand, repeat similar commitments.

Unlike Australia’s government‑run National Redress Scheme, the Church’s approach is ecclesiastical rather than statutory; it works through bishops, welfare funds, and, where appropriate, legal settlements. But measured against the core survivor‑centric lesson—words must be joined to concrete care—the Church has for many years combined clear doctrinal condemnation of abuse with structured access to counseling and material help. 

6) Culture and Communications: From Reputation Management to Safety‑First

As early as 1978, there was direct condemnation of child abuse during the Church’s general conference. And in 1979, domestic abuse was a consideration in giving a temple recommend.

In perhaps the strongest possible cultural signal within the Latter-day Saint context, questions about abuse of family members were added to the temple recommend questions in 1989, alongside other major cultural and doctrinal signifiers such as chastity and dietary restrictions. 

Between 1976 and 2013, more than 50 news and magazine articles appeared in Church publications condemning child abuse in unequivocal terms and encouraging members to seek help rather than suffer in silence. 

That cultural messaging has remained consistent. Since 2018, that cultural messaging has accelerated. Articles like “Hope and Healing for Victims of Abuse,” online lessons on recognizing abuse, the consolidation of the General Handbook (with entire subsections titled “Safeguarding Children” and “Safeguarding Youth”), and newsroom explainers on how the Church approaches abuse have all pushed in the same direction: make expectations public, normalize reporting, and center the needs of victims rather than the reputation of the institution.

Culture is the hardest thing to measure. There will continue to be local leaders who respond poorly, and media stories will rightly scrutinize those failures. But if we apply the same standard we used for Chicago Public Schools and other systems—Are there clear structures? Are expectations written down? Are leaders being told in public documents that protection comes before reputation?—the answer for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints today is yes. The Church was well ahead of the curve in addressing this tragic issue.

Are We Actually Doing Poorly?

Part of the answer is simply mathematical. In a global church with millions of members, hundreds of thousands of local leaders, and decades of weekly contact with children and youth, even an exceptionally small failure rate produces more than enough heartbreak to fill a docuseries. A system can be comparatively safe and still have real, grievous failures. The stories in Surviving Mormonism are painful precisely because they are exceptions in a people who know, instinctively and doctrinally, that children ought to be protected.

The best available research suggests that on both child abuse and the well-being of LGBT+ members, the Church of Jesus Christ performs well above the average. Docuseries such as Surviving Mormonism tell important stories that can help continual improvement, but they can paint a misleading picture by picking exceptional rather than representative cases. This treatment is applied to the Church of Jesus Christ simply because, as a religious minority, there is curiosity. And frankly, the word “Mormon” when combined with scandal sells. 

It is tragic that any of the stories featured in Surviving Mormonism happened at all. Latter‑day Saints should continue to improve training, to enforce the two‑adult rule without exception, to post reporting steps, and to support survivors with compassion and concrete help, always working toward the goal of eliminating abuse. Perhaps the Church can be at the forefront of developing even better policies than we are currently imagining. That said, when we step back and compare reforms across churches, schools, Scouts, and sports, the evidence suggests that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints has built the right safeguards and, in key areas, has been ahead of broader societal trends in implementing them, and has the results you would expect from such forward thinking.

Related Articles

• Attention Is Cheap. Love Is Expensive. It’s Worth It
• When Compassion Misleads: How Faith and Identity Can Coexist
• Netflix’s American Primeval: The Prejudiced Fiction of Brigham Young

The post “Surviving Mormonism” and the Real Story of Institutional Harm appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Suffering from sexual trauma is, unfortunately, all too common in today’s world. More than half of women and close to one in three men have experienced sexual violence at some point in their lives. The ripple effects of sexual trauma can be lasting and difficult to overcome, but the good news is that an increasing amount of research supports the idea that healing sexual trauma is possible through mindfulness. Even those suffering from the challenges posed specifically by sexual trauma have been shown to benefit from mindfulness training. 

When I was young, I was the victim of a child pornography ring. I repressed the memories of the things I experienced during that time and struggled for years with symptoms of sexual abuse that I didn’t understand. I encountered several challenges in every relationship I pursued. For example, I carried a heavy amount of blame and disgust for myself, especially related to my sexuality. I also felt ashamed and confused every time anyone with romantic interest expressed tenderness or intimacy in any form, whether physical or emotional. As I worked with a counselor years later, I was introduced to mindfulness as a practice to help cope with trauma and was able to overcome many of the negative effects I lived with every day. The tools I was given have helped me implement a daily mindful practice and to continue to enjoy greater and greater satisfaction in my relationships. 

What is Mindfulness, and What Are the Benefits? 

Mindfulness is the practice of “bringing attention to one’s own thoughts, feelings, and actions as they occur, with curiosity, openness, and acceptance.” It is “paying attention on purpose.” Mindfulness is a state of being that encourages increased awareness and acceptance of every experience, whether positive or negative. This can be difficult because it suggests the benefit of embracing an unpleasant moment instead of attempting to control or ignore it. While challenging, the act of allowing awareness and acceptance of thoughts and feelings associated with trauma and letting them come and go without judgment presents the opportunity of making peace with the past and present. The very nature of mindfulness can help trauma survivors let go of shame, judgment, and blame for the things they have experienced and replace those feelings with curiosity and acceptance of themselves.

How Is Mindfulness Practiced?

“Mindfulness is always mindfulness of something.” A good place to start practicing mindfulness is being mindful of your breathing, which is something that is always present. Try paying attention to each breath in and each breath out. Pay attention to how it feels physically in your body and how it feels emotionally to take a slow breath in and a slow breath out. When you give attention to your breath, you are being present in the moment and putting your focus on the here and now. Try setting aside a specific amount of time each day to be more present with your thoughts and feelings. This is a great beginning towards being more mindful. 

Healing from sexual trauma can seem daunting, but here are three steps you can take to begin the journey. 

The First Step: Make Peace with Your Identity as a Sexual Being

Our sexual identity is an important part of sexual health. This sexual identity involves our ideas, thoughts, and feelings about ourselves as sexual beings. Unfortunately, sexual trauma survivors can tend to feel shame, fear, and even disgust toward themselves regarding their sexuality. However, childhood sexual abuse survivors who practice mindfulness are shown to have a more positive perception of themselves as pertaining to their sexuality. They are also more likely to experience greater sexual satisfaction, which is likely attributable to their higher rates of sexual self-esteem and lower sexual depression. The practice of mindfulness can help us accept and even celebrate ourselves as we are. 

Step Number Two: Remember Thoughts are Just Thoughts

Sexual trauma survivors often struggle with difficult memories that can trigger negative perceptions about themselves and the things that have happened to them. For many years I tried to pretend I didn’t have any negative thoughts or negative feelings at all. I perceived any negativity as “bad,” and therefore, it shouldn’t have any part in my life, which seemed only to cause these thoughts and feelings to resurface more persistently. As an alternative to suppressing or avoiding negative thoughts and feelings, mindfulness encourages letting them come and go “gently” and without judgment. When we can slow down or eliminate the tendency to label our thoughts about past and present experiences as “good” or “bad,” we are freer to let the moment become what it is authentically. By allowing our thoughts to flow naturally, we regulate our emotions more effectively, we are more intentional, and we are more connected to the present moment. Being focused on the present allows us to truly enjoy each experience, whether during physical intimacy or just in our everyday lives. 

Step Three: Disidentify with the Past

When trauma occurs in someone’s life, they often feel responsible or less valued. Although intellectually, they may know that is not true, they may need to visit with a therapist to re-story their self-perception. This involves challenging any negative internalized beliefs and reinforcing strengths and positive perceptions. Beginning to objectively view our trauma is an important step in learning to disidentify with negative sexual experiences. Mindfulness can help us to “reperceive” our relationship with the trauma; seeing the experience with greater clarity fosters a change in perception and a greater possibility for improvements in our future outlook. Mindfulness has also been shown to help people become “more present centered (as opposed to past or future centered) during sex, and more process absorbed … both processes contributing to improving sexual experience.” When we let go of our ties to who we may have thought we were as a result of our trauma, it allows us to become who we want to be. It is even possible to reframe and view our trauma as a separate occurrence—something that happened to us as opposed to something we choose to participate in or to be identified by. While our trauma may have been sexual in nature, it is completely different from the sexual relationship we choose with our current partner. 

In Conclusion: Progress, Not Perfection

Taking steps in healing sexual trauma can be a daunting task, so it is important to be patient with yourself. Looking for signs of progress instead of expecting perfection is another way to give yourself the space and time you need to heal. Take courage in the fact that many survivors who have chosen a mindfulness approach have made great improvements in their relationships and overall well-being. While challenging, the journey you take to heal and improve your relationship with yourself and others will be well worth the effort.

Additional Mindfulness Resources

Alloflife.org – A website dedicated to mental and emotional health from a mindfulness standpoint. “Mindweather 101” is a free course offered on the site that teaches aspects of mindfulness. 

Chelomleavitt.com – Resources include research, podcasts, and other links that teach techniques geared toward mindfulness and sexuality. 

Mindfulnesscds.com – Jon Kabat-Zinn’s scientific papers and other resources for mindfulness and healing.

Plumvillage.org – The mindfulness teachings and practices of Thich Nhat Hanh, who explains “the art of mindful living.”

The post A Journey of Redemption: Overcoming Sexual Trauma Through Mindfulness appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

What I will describe is the influence of pornography’s toxic scripts in isolation, excluding the (potential) mitigating and countervailing influence of the user’s resilient innate humanity. Thankfully, pornography does not operate in such a values vacuum, and the dangerous reality of pornographic scripting is not a real-world description of what ensues. A natural pullback from pornography’s toxicity arises for many from the rescuing restraint of our divine nature. Our hardwiring for human connection and compassion is like a relational immune response countering and curtailing the pathogen of pornography. Thankfully, most people have a strong relational immune system and a robust relational immune response that pulls them back and holds them back from the relational and sexual toxicities which pornography scripts and towards which pornography drives. With that reassuring hope of pulling back in mind, we will first examine the inherently toxic nature of pornography and then set forth intervention to strengthen the human empathy that lies at the heart of our relational immune system response. 

Pornography is ubiquitous, and the pervasive viewing of pornography is highlighting its toxicities. Pornography consumption has increased exponentially in recent years for all ages and genders. A nationally representative survey of adults in the United States found that one-third (33.5%) of dating men and one-third (33.1%) of married men report weekly or daily pornography use, as well as 13.4% of dating women and 1% of married women. In another survey, irrespective of relationship status, 46% of men and 16% of women reported viewing online pornography at least weekly. In attitude, over 70% of men and women report some level of approval for pornography use. Another recent national survey showed that three-quarters of teenagers have seen porn by age 17, with the average age of first exposure being 12 years old. This “adult” entertainment industry yields a significant amount of underaged exposure, shaping how youth view sex and how they cultivate future intimate relationships.

Pornography’s psychological and relational deterioration of one’s view of others begins with its eroticism script and continues with a closely related second script of objectification—narratives and depictions for exploiting the physical body solely as a collection of sexual triggers and stimuli. Continuing its non-holistic and non-relational nature, its denigration of the personhood of the other, pornography also scripts promiscuity, an entirely detached, non-committal, serial approach to sexuality, anchoring sexual gratification to novelty and scripting men as sexual marauders and raiders. Pornography never offers any reason to hold back on moving on and on and on. 

Most persons are perceptively aware of the reality of these first three pornography scripts—eroticism, objectification, and promiscuity. Pornography’s first three scripts for sexual arousal and gratification obsessing upon eroticism, objectification, and promiscuity, hardly demand empirical documentation to be known—they are quite obvious. So now we get to the fourth script embedded in pornography, which is misogyny. Perhaps some say, “The first three scripts are plainly evident in pornography, but you’re saying that pornography scripts for misogyny? How so?”

Misogyny, Really?

Misogyny is disrespect, disdain, negativity, contempt, or hostility toward women. No matter the severity of manifestation, misogyny is rightly viewed as corrosive and counter to empathy (toward women)—an essential relationship virtue and wellspring of care and restraint. The psychological and relational deterioration cascading from pornography use to misogyny deserves unpacking. As we consider the psychodynamics of pornography, the connection between pornography and misogyny may become apparent. 

Pornography scripting for misogyny seems far-fetched to some. Perhaps they are unaware of the prevalence of depictions of aggression, abuse, and violence in popular pornography. Content analysis of best-selling pornography videos found high levels of both physical (88.2%) and verbal (48.7%) aggression, with males almost always portrayed as the perpetrators of aggression and females overwhelmingly the targets of aggression. Further desensitization and, unbelievably, even normalization of such misogynistic behavior comes as women are depicted as responding neutrally or with pleasure to such degrading and abusive behavior. Who can doubt that depicting the denigration of women in a framework of reinforcing male sexual gratification and female acceptance foments and confirms misogyny?

One need look no further than stereotypical “frat-boy” and “locker-room” talk or high-profile public figures’ sexual exploitations and contemptuous talk and behavior for anecdotal and observational confirmation of misogynistic creep. Past unwelcome exposure to so-called “locker-room talk” of young adult males offered putrid awareness of how some men view and exploit women as mere sexual “tools” for their own gratification. Further, outright misogyny was evident as they described sexually “using” women (exploitation) and taking satisfaction in emotionally damaging (abusing) the women they were involved with. Does anyone believe that partner consent can qualitatively transform such sexual experiences into a condition of psychological and relational wholeness? Can we see the misogyny in it? Pornography’s scripts fuel such degrading attitudes, marauding sexuality, and misogyny.

Pornography scripts for sexual “taking.” As happens in every sexual interaction where “my gratification,” rather than our “shared satisfaction” and “our relationship” is the focus, removing the other person’s needs, wants, and desires from the relationship and sexual frame of reference turns a couple into two solipsistic individuals taking what they want. The word self-ish doesn’t even really apply because “self” implies an “other,” and the solipsistic are “other-oblivious.” The universe may exist apart from them, but it exists just for them. The other isn’t removed from the equation; they were never entered into the equation. 

This is non-relational sexual taking, each person taking what they want from the other with minimal regard to the other, and there is a real consequence and pain to all involved in it. Making others objects for sexual gratification—even with such mutual consent that the world supposes—can change the contours of the human psyche and our divine nature. While it is increasingly relationally, socially, and legally accepted—“as long as there is consent”—sexual taking is nonetheless relationally reprehensible. Further, the mindset of sexual taking scripted by pornography, if left unchecked, easily degrades to much worse. Yet sexual taking without concern or consequence is exactly what pornography sells.

Some will note, however, that a smaller percentage of persons report viewing explicit pornographic scripting of misogynistic (exploitive, degrading, abusive, violent, non-consensual) depictions. Consequently, setting aside these extremes that so-called “soft-core porn” may put in the background or leave out, some speciously reason that soft-core pornography elevates women (their physical beauty, sexual attractiveness, and inherent appeal) in the eyes of its viewers. We will use attachment principles to show that such is not the case, that pornography is ubiquitously corrosive to male–female relations and inherently misogynistic, no matter the type of pornography.  Understanding attachment dynamics that support sexual wholeness helps us to see that pornography is anti-attachment, inherently scripting male attitudes of disrespect, disdain, negativity, contempt, or hostility toward women through porn’s erotic objectification and exploitative promiscuity. For some, porn can condition sexual arousal to misogynistically tinged depictions. 

The viewing of pornography inculcates scripts of objectification and exploitation of another human being for one’s own sexual gratification. Fantasizing, or worse, enacting such scripts—such as those young adult males in the locker room were boasting of—is inherently offensive to our humanity (until we deaden our senses). Our inborn attachment behavioral system and caregiving behavioral system are simply not wired for such interpersonally corrosive and exploitative transactions. We are naturally wired for sympathetic and empathetic connection and responsiveness. “Though our culture may tell us otherwise, we are not designed for self-actualized, pleasure-seeking autonomy. We are deeply relational beings, designed … for … connection.” Coming to the same conclusion from a spiritual framework, Jeffrey R. Holland similarly affirms that “human intimacy, that sacred, physical union ordained of God for a married couple, … is—or certainly was ordained to be—a symbol of total union: union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything.”

Consequently, fantasizing or enacting pornography’s exploitative, transactional view of the other and of sex cannot help but lead to psychological dissonance—negative feelings about one’s behavior and oneself for engaging in it. 

The mind has to do something about the dissonance—either change the offending behavior or get rid of the feelings. That is where psychological projection and misogyny enter. The next step in the cascade is the psychological projection of the pain of the spiritual–moral dissonance that threatens one’s self-concept and sense of well-being. By faulty but commonplace psychological projection—a defense mechanism—painful yet properly inward-aimed feelings of moral dissonance, repugnance, and disgust get projected outward. Psychological projection is a process not amenable to rational explanation but nonetheless commonly understood and readily recognized—it’s the stubbing of one’s toe on the door and then slamming the door in anger as though it were at fault. Irrational projection is blaming women for how badly one feels (spiritual–moral dissonance) and how badly one fares in relationships with them in consequence of one’s own pornography use and assimilation of its associated attitudes and scripts. Psychological projection fuels misogyny.

In turn, in time, this becomes an entrapment. For one cannot help but surmise and predict that such attitudes will be corrosive to actual male–female interactions and produce distancing, alienation, and rejection in the relationships of men and women. One’s own spiritual–moral dissonance is now paired with relational rejection, and together they amp up the resort to pornography and amplify misogyny. Sexual intimacy, not sexual taking, is the better representation of human individual and relationship ideals.

A Way Out—Empathy Training 

One might surrender pornography use and then gradually re-trend toward healthy human transactions. Being innate to our being, our humanity and our attachment are durable and resilient in that way. A converse approach, one often deployed with offenders, is to begin with empathy training. The anticipation is that the development of real human empathy will naturally produce a sensitivity that ultimately strengthens resistance to and shunning of pornography, its toxic scripts now being plainly revealed. “Our … [moral] agency endows us with the responsibility and privilege of becoming beings who can experience the deepest forms of [human] connection.” The potential for intense joy or searing pain in our most intimate sharing of ourselves and receiving of the other is tremendous. 

Empathy can be, indeed is designed to be a natural metric of our relationship behavior and a check on our self-, other-, and relationship-destructive passions and exploitations. Empathy can be the beginning of a path of healing and helping. Empathy doesn’t automatically lead to caring behavior; one still must choose to act on empathy. Empathy, and then importantly, disciplining ourselves to be bridled by empathy, is what allows us to safely hold the heart and soul of another human; we become vessels of safe holding—fully and completely trustworthy.

Human empathy is developed and deepened as individuals seek and achieve (a) a deeply held view and felt experience of the humanity of every person, (b) an ability to emotionally and cognitively place oneself within the lived experience of the other, and (c) sensitivity and responsiveness to both of these (their humanity and lived experience).

Nurturing human empathy is likely a significant, if not the foundational component of all manner of behavioral rehabilitation in relationships (including communication, anger management, relational aggression, pornography use, and, in incarceration settings, sex offender treatment). Empathy development can likely be helped by “training,” such as in treatment settings, but empathy must ultimately be understood as a virtue to be pursued holistically through spiritual, emotional, cognitive, and relational work. People can be helped in learning to listen, connect, care, and respond. Fully formed empathy is a cognitive, emotional, relational, and spiritual connection that can support self-restraint and self-constraint, including sparking and sustaining motivation for overcoming pornography use—for the sake of everyone harmed by it, from the supply chain to the end user, spouse, and family. 

I–Thou, Abandoning I–it

In a broader sense, empathy training is about initiating and expanding our capacity to truly and fully see one another, the whole human person, in every transaction. Philosopher Martin Buber referred to this as a fundamental “I–Thou” humanistic orientation, abandoning the core, corrosive “I–it” view of the other rendered in pornographic depictions and narratives. “I–Thou” is relational humanitarianism, living and acting for the welfare of all beings. In contrast, “I–it” is relational solipsism, living and acting as if nothing but the self exists or matters.

While the sexual drive is powerful and easily perverted into exploitative pornographic forms—co-opting the sexual arousal template toward solipsistic use—our innate humanity represented in our attachment and caregiving instincts and behavior pull us back from the solipsistic brink and rescue us for the experience of relational wholeness. Our relational drive for connection is an ever-present pushback against pornography’s scripts for sexual misuse.  From a developmental perspective, sexual drive comes on fast and furious, and we perhaps cannot anticipate complete avoidance of pornography’s toxic socialization, especially in a sexually saturated society. We can, however, persistently and stubbornly promote empathy and affirm our own and others’ humanity through “I–Thou” respect and honor. In all our relationships, we can reach for relational wholeness and celebrate the joy of whole-being relationships.  With wife or husband, we can add to relational wholeness, sexual wholeness.  We can persistently and stubbornly redeem our desires and our relationship through attachment caregiving and Christian virtue.  Empathy can help us “take back sex” for the ultimate and intimate relational experience it is so beautifully and powerfully designed to be.  

The post Recovering from the Relational Health Crisis of Pornography appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Recently, a horrific incident of family abuse perpetrated by a less active member of the Church of Jesus Christ caught headlines around the world. This case, however brutal and undeniable, fueled a belief that the Church harbored an endemic abuse problem. The crucial point is that such extreme instances, while distressing, can cast a disproportionately long shadow, distorting the perception of an entire community.

The Power of Narratives and Cognitive Biases in Shaping Perceptions

Media narratives wield considerable power in shaping public perceptions, often by simplifying complex realities. Roach’s research, which contradicts a widespread belief that religious institutions are rife with hidden abuse, may invite skepticism. This disbelief, however, does not necessarily stem from the data’s validity but rather from its divergence from prevailing narratives. In fact, her findings align with other smaller analyses. In our quest for a nuanced understanding, it’s paramount to challenge our assumptions and examine the facts closely. In fact, in an environment where no real quantitative research had been done on this question previously, it’s even more important to challenge our assumptions that were likely developed without regard for the prevalence of the problem. 

The previous absence of data did permit some dramatic conclusions. Jana Riess, for example, wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune, “I have not seen any credible evidence that the incidence of sexual abuse is higher in Latter-day Saint communities than anywhere else,” but somehow uses that as a springboard to criticize what she believes are ways the Church mishandles abuse. 

Now that credible evidence exists that the incidence of sexual abuse is much lower in Latter-day Saint communities, will she be willing to re-evaluate her criticisms? And even if she does, will her readers who absorbed her narrative re-evaluate? All this is based on an assumption that proved to be contrary to the evidence.

In my background in media criticism, the concept of “disequilibrium” often emerges, suggesting that stories involving conflict and controversy draw audiences. This theory sheds light on the persistent focus on abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and high-profile cases like the Penn State scandal. While these stories deserve attention, media bias towards controversy can distort understanding and inflame public perception of abuse rates in religious institutions. For example, female teachers who sexually assault students make the news much more frequently even though they are much less likely to sexually assault students.

And nothing is as effective at generating traffic as making your readers feel angry. So anything that can intersect with the culture war is more likely to be noted as newsworthy by journalists and their editors. This includes religious institutions.

The reality is that what we talk about deeply influences how frequently we think that happens. This is why we consistently believe terrorism, ebola, and shark attacks are much more likely than they are, in fact. And this conclusion can prevent us from recognizing good solutions where they exist.

Religious institutions are often caught up in this distortion, caught in the crossfire of a culture war where the negative stories that do exist about them are amplified because there is an appetite to feel angry at religion, which in turn creates the misunderstanding of how frequent these problems actually are. The continual focus on child abuse within these groups, while not entirely unfounded, disproportionately magnifies the issue, perpetuating the perception that religious institutions are predisposed to such misconduct when the best available data seems to suggest that they reduce such misconduct in general and that the Church of Jesus Christ is especially effective in reducing abuse. 

Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and the availability heuristic, further exacerbate this distortion. They prompt us to interpret information that aligns with our beliefs and overestimate the prevalence of readily available events, distorting our understanding of the true abuse rates within religious institutions. This results in a kind of fallacy sometimes referred to as a special pleading, and this kind of response was common to those whose pre-existing ideas were challenged by Roach’s research. They often suggested that individuals may have been abused by the Church outside of BSA or that abuse was underreported. Both of these could be true, but there is no evidence to suggest these issues appear disproportionately among Latter-day Saints. But critics insist on this special critique of the Church of Jesus Christ in order to dismiss the findings and avoid challenging their preconceived notions. 

Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Abuse Within Religious Institutions

These established narratives then become self-reinforcing. These preconceived notions are likely why journalists such as Cara Kelly at the Washington Post report that there are more claims against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any other organization, without even thinking to check that the Church had overwhelmingly more scouts than any other organization. Or, perhaps because this matched her preconceived notion, that led her to claim that more than half didn’t report their charter when simply opening up the claims would have shown that not to be the case. But why go through that additional work when your preconceived notion is already confirmed? 

It’s essential to resist generalizations based on isolated cases and acknowledge the potential for their disproportionate influence on our perception. 

Obtaining reliable data on abuse rates within religious organizations has been historically challenging due to data limitations. Anecdotal evidence, while emotionally compelling, often amplifies extreme cases, leading to skewed perceptions. With the first real introduction of comprehensive data, we move beyond the confines of individual narratives, advancing our understanding of the issue.

It is a difficult challenge. No case of abuse is ever okay. Yet when identifying how to reduce abuse on an institutional scale, we need to look at what works—what reduces abuse. And since no one has been able to eradicate abuse, we will need to look at communities that do a good job reducing overall harm. If we resist the approaches that reduce harm because of our righteous desire to eradicate all harm, we aren’t fixing the problem.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ successful strategy in combatting abuse offers a beacon of hope, presenting a case study that merits further examination. It underscores the importance of focusing not just on eradicating the bad but also on promoting the good.

This isn’t about winning an argument but safeguarding our children. We owe it to them to welcome solutions that shield them from harm, even those from unexpected quarters. It is our shared societal duty to protect children and in doing so, challenge our preconceptions and strive to build a safer world.

The post Confronting Pre-conceived Illusions: Latter-day Saints and the Abuse Narrative appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The rate of abuse that occurs at churches of all denominations is much too high. And while it’s true that children are at much higher risk of abuse at school, churches can and should hold themselves to a higher standard. 

But addressing this problem is difficult because good data on who is addressing the problem well is hard to come by and hard to trust. The recent settlement about abuse cases related to the Boy Scouts of America is a rare exception. As I’ve written about previously, this data identifies the sponsoring organizations and the religious affiliations of the leaders.

Latter-day Saint troops made up 20-30% of the total number of Boy Scouts of America troops. But Latter-day Saint-affiliated troops only accounted for 5% of the total number of abuse cases.

Why are abuse rates 75%-83% lower than you would expect for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

If I told another organization, “I know how to lower your abuse rate by 75%,” they would be listening. So what’s going on? Why this significantly lower rate? 

I have some theories.

1. We’ve been taught about these things for a long time. Long before mandatory reporting laws and background checks, the Church was already thinking of these issues. In 1985 the Church published a booklet called “Child Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders.” It taught leaders to take reports seriously, believe the victim, treat them with compassion, and how to resource them with appropriate help. It also instructed leaders to know and follow the reporting requirements in their state. Very few other churches had this much of a head-start on dealing with abuse. By the mid-1990s, almost every church or denomination was talking about these issues, but it was far rarer in the 1980s. In 1996, when President Hinckley was asked by Mike Wallace about abuse he replied, “We are doing everything we know how to reduce it.  We are teaching our people.  We are talking about it.  We have set up a course of instruction for our bishops all across the nation.  All last year we carried on an educational program.  We have set up a helpline for them where they can get professional counseling and help with these problems. … We have issued publications, established a telephone line where church officers may receive counsel in handling cases, and offered professional help through LDS Family Services. … We are concerned about it.”

2. Existing Associations. Most churches are not organized geographically, and members are not assigned a local congregation to attend. They go where they want, and they can change when they want. In a lot of ways, this can be helpful to families, but not when it comes to preventing abuse. Here’s what can happen: If a would-be abuser is attending ABC Church and notices that his behavior has caught the attention of the church’s leadership, he can easily stop going to that church. The following week he drives across town to try at another church where no one knows him yet. There is no communication between these two churches.  None of his neighbors attend there, and unless he already has a conviction for child abuse on his record, nothing would show on a background check. He gets a blank slate. But in our congregations, people attend church with their neighbors. If a would-be abuser started to draw suspicion, he can’t easily change wards. If he wanted to do so without drawing suspicion, he would have to move to a different house in a different ward. Now, admittedly, this dynamic works better in areas where there is a high percentage of church members. As I write this, I can look out the window and see the houses of almost every member of my ward. We live in high-density housing in an area with many church members. In other areas where a ward might take 2 hours to drive across, this does not work as tightly, but the same dynamic is still there, and the less dense the membership is, the greater the disincentive to move. When a member does move to another city or country, their membership number follows them. Bishops and other leaders have the ability to make annotations on these records and are encouraged to do so, especially when the member’s behavior makes them unsafe around children. 

3. Sustaining as Public Announcement.  In most churches, someone can become a volunteer in the children’s ministry very quietly. If the church is large, the vast majority of members will never know this person works with children. Volunteers receive no public announcement of their position. However, in our church, if you are called to teach the 3rd grade Sunday School class, everyone in the ward will hear about it because the calling is announced before the congregation, and members give a sign that they will sustain the person in their new calling. If a fellow ward member has information about this new volunteer’s behavior with children in the past, they may not feel comfortable raising their hand to oppose the calling, but they almost certainly would feel comfortable having a conversation with the bishop about it. There is no structure for this to happen in other churches.  “Sustainings” were not designed for this purpose, but they do serve it rather well.

4. Calling VS. Volunteering. A friend recently recounted a relevant experience. He, his wife, and their young kids visited a non-LDS church in their area that had some fun programming for children. Their kids wanted to be involved, but my friend didn’t know anyone in their community and thought it would be better if he could volunteer to help.  When he approached the leadership in that church, he was immediately told yes they would love to have him. Luckily, my friend is no threat to children. But imagine if he were. He had met the people in that community only an hour before. None of them knew him or his family. He would have been given almost instant access to children. Compare that to our system. If someone wants to work with children, they have to wait until they’re called. Yes, people sometimes can and do volunteer, and a Bishop or Branch President would likely be delighted to hear of their willingness. But they would still need to be put through the system of receiving a call—a process that would not be easy to get through 1 hour after you walked through the door. Our calling system throttles would-be abusers by making access to children significantly harder than in other places.

6. Female leadership. This is a theory that really only applies to the young women in our church, but it still should be considered. The vast majority of sexual abuse is committed by men. Yes, there are women abusers, but 99 out of 100 abusers are male. In most church youth groups, the leadership—who sets the agenda and the culture—is entirely male. There are likely women volunteers around, but they do not hold the same kind of responsibility for the care of the young people that the men hold. Teenage girls in our church have women called over them. And while a young woman may have a male Sunday School or seminary teacher, she also has an adult woman whose responsibility is to watch over her spiritual needs. In this, our girls have something many other girls don’t have. 

Any amount of abuse is too much. Every case of abuse represents a terrible violation of trust and damage to a soul. And we hear about abuse a lot these days. It could be easy to feel overwhelmed and scared. I share with you this research and these theories not so that you can let your guard down but so you can recognize and support what approaches can help protect the most vulnerable.

The post I Know How to Lower Church Abuse Rates by 75% appeared first on Public Square Magazine.